Explaining fascism

After listening to History on Fire’s Danielle Bolelli’s excellent podcast about fascism it inspired me to discuss this topic myself. And whereas Bolelli gets it spot on, as always, I want to further ponder this topic as there might never have been a more important time to understand this concept as it is now. I have already touched upon this a little bit in the series about Vidkun Quisling - so check that out if you haven’t already - and my point is not to get all political all of a sudden, but more trying to dig into the ideology and describing how it can be seen in a historical context.

One of the reasons for fascism being a bit of a blurry concept is that there is no written fascist manifesto, in many way you can argue that it is an ideology that is just emerging organically in Italy. Whereas Marx and Engels wrote the Communist manifesto and Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, fascism does not have any sort of founding document. In fact, when the father of fascism Benito Mussolini at one point was asked what his ideology was, he said that something like that his only ideology was to take power in Italy, but what does fascism mean in practice and how is it different from its close cousin Nazism? Let’s try to find out.

The first important factor is nationalism - you can of course have nationalism in many forms without it being anything close to fascism – but you simply cannot have fascism without nationalism.

Identity is key here, and in that regard, I can strongly recommend Francis Fukuyama’s book called precisely that – Identity – because for most people politics is also about emotion, it is about belonging and unity. In fascism you are often chasing back to an earlier identity, you mythologize a glorious past and are yearning to bring that back. The fact that the past might not at all have been that glorious, objectively speaking, is not important – fascism is relentlessly poking into people’s lack of a secure identity, dreaming of a past where things were better, easier, simpler – happier times without the complexity and uncertainty that modern society brings to the table. It is not a coincidence that Mussolini’s fascism emerged in a climate where industrialization and social change was rampant, much like the technological revolution in today’s world is rapidly changing the rules regarding employment, status and opportunity.

For Mussolini the glorious past was the Roman empire, he was in many ways the embodiment of the classical roman emperor that would once again bring order and structure and not least – a feeling of pride – amongst people that felt they had lost theirs in an ever more confusing world. While fascism and Nazism is different in some key areas, this is definitely something that they have in common. If you have heard my series on Vidkun Quisling you will remember that he also to a very large degree had this trait - for him it was of course not about the Roman empire, it was the Viking age that he wanted to bring back; the time when the Norwegians raided the shores of Europe and had power and were militarily superior. He took this to the comical extreme and had his home decorated in old Norse style and would go to the old Viking burial mounds to hold political rallies and so forth. Hitler and his accomplices also stayed on the same path, yearning back for a time where the Germanic tribes roamed free, and even spent lot of resources on mock archeology that would support their views of a superior Germanic race.

To relate this to today’s politics – which is of course a hornet’s nest that I am now going to place my hand in the very middle of – few things exemplify this one specific element of fascism better than the Make America Great Again movement. I am not necessarily saying that the MAGA republicans or Donald Trump are fascist (that is a different discussion – and as you will see if you continue reading there are elements that clearly goes against classical fascism) but regardless of what you call it, “Make America Great Again” is the perfect example of yearning for a past that was likely not that glorious, but that is perceived as simpler, more honorable times. Again – not stating that this is necessarily a fascist thought on its own, but if we are to look for modern parallels this is a very clear one: it is the archetype of longing to the past. You could easily see Mussolini, Quisling or Hitler using exact the same slogan, just replacing America with their countries, of course. “Bring the good times back, the times we were all great, and I am the man that can make that happen!”

It is also worth noting that people of extreme ideologies will rarely label themselves as such even though they might fit the bill perfectly – for example: The Nazis did not particularly like the word Nazi and would never identify as such. Still – it should be an obvious red political flag when movements start yearning for this mythological past, be it Reagan or Augustus, because as we all know deep down, turning back time is always impossible – so creating a myth around this is rarely little more than manipulating people that feel lost in a current whirlwind of change – it is not a real, fruitful political standpoint because the objective is impossible.

Let’s move on to another key component of fascism: the idea of the strong man (or woman), the strong leader that can take control – that can carry the population, one man to lead. Often the movement is entirely centered around this person - after all, what was fascism in Italy without Mussolini? What was Nazism without Hitler? In many ways the person becomes the ideology, you have the same with Stalin, molding the communism into his image, and this concept with the strong man is something that differentiates these extreme ideologies from most others. They are all in essence anti-democratic and totalitarian, even though they will often gain power through democratic processes – Hitler did that, and Vidkun Quisling tried to do that, before undermining these democracies from within. You can easily argue that many modern far-right leaders are doing the same, Hungary currently being a prime example.

As Danielle points to in his brilliant podcast (it’s on his Patreon feed, so you better pay the man! It’s worth it!) there are some other very typical fascist traits: It is a movement that often brands itself on being revolutionary, at the same time as being ultra conservative – it is an ideology that in general does not allow for many different people types, it prefers a streamlined population where people that are different are often looked on as outcasts, delinquents and perverts. Women are supposed to have traditional roles, often being housewives and not sexually frivolous (so obviously also anti-abortion), everything going outside of the “normal” such as having a different sexual orientation or other things that breaks with traditional gender roles is looked down upon, and there is a sense that embracing differences or uncertainty is a sign of weakness. Fascism is actually about unity – not in the meaning of collaboration – but in the sense of one people living in a clear hierarchical society. But while fascism desire a homogenous population, here is a very important point: Fascism does not necessarily involve racism, even though it often ends up like that when the nationalism goes overboard, but this is in my humble opinion one of the most important differences with Nazism.

Whereas Nazism is strongly about believing that there are different human races where some races are more valuable and better and pure than others, often including pseudoscientific theories with elements of social-Darwinism, this does not have the same standing in classical fascism, nor does outright antisemitism. This is where a lot of people go wrong – saying that someone is not fascist because he or she does not want to exterminate Jews, this is in my opinion irrelevant. It is true that Mussolini adopted this stance towards the end of the war and implemented Nazi laws regarding race, but that was only because he was forced to by Hitler after the Germans had to come to fascist Italy’s help – this was never really a part of fascist ideology. Other things that differentiate the two are different is the relationship with religion, Mussolini embraced the catholic church that also had very conservative views in terms of what we today will call woke, whereas Hitler’s men never really got comfortable with the church. They even tried to create their own Nazi church that never took off, but there is something about blatant antisemitism and Jesus that is hard to combine – Jesus of course being a Jew. So this would be another big difference.

Also while being forced into adopting Nazi believes the ideal of the blonde Arian was something that was a little awkward for Mussolini as most Italians do not fit this description, but that is of course not to say there was not racism also in play here and there – but while completely essential in Nazism, it is not essential in fascism in the same way.

Another big thing about classical fascism is connected to militarism and to the display of so-called strength, and in many cases this also include some form of imperialism. Italy did a horrible job at trying to invade Ethiopia of all places, but they did try that, and since I already mentioned MAGA republicans and Trump (likely pissing some people off, I promise that was not my intention) this is an area where it is harder to argue for similarities of fascism, at least as long as Donald Trump does not start invading others should he regain power. So if you are to argue about the ever more far-right Republican party is turning fascist, this is likely one point where you might struggle, although there can be arguments to be made here also I suppose.

For Vladimir Putin’s Russia on the other hand, this pattern of behavior is very much up the ally of fascism – recreating glory of old through military might and annexation, also trying to use history as a propaganda tool, which is interesting but also completely futile. That brings us to another typical trait: propaganda. There is no freedom of speech, you will be shot down if you criticize people in power, jailed or even killed – Vladimir Putin’s Russia fits this like a glove, the biggest opposition leader being in jail, and several political opponents mysteriously killed.

There is much more that can be said about this, but I’ll limit myself to saying that fascism does not understand the need for democracy and views it as a nuisance, a complicating factor. Quisling, that is not the clear cut Nazi Hitler was and was also heavily inspired by fascism, called his party National Unity because he thought he would save Norway from the bickering of party politics that in his view only led to chaos. He wanted order, and paradoxically enough didn’t believe that he did anything wrong, even though he will be remembered by history as one of the worst traitors to ever have lived.

I think we can conclude that when we use the word “fascist”, we often use it incorrectly, but at the same time there can also be little doubt that there are clearly fascist elements emerging in modern politics – and these are elements that we should be aware of, they are red flags that should make us stand up and take notice because fascism or totalitarianism never ends well for anybody. I think Winston Churchill’s famous quote is still pretty much spot on: “Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried”.